Your entire house is wired with one big MWBC. You have the two incoming hots sharing one neutral. No difference.
Tandems typically one hit one leg of the panel. GE is the one exception.
True and I don’t have a problem with MWBC’s when they’re installed correctly.
Indeed, however, the odds of a MWBC losing the neutral is higher than losing the house’s neutral, IMO. This is why NEC has special rules to try to prevent this, such as NEC 300.13(B) & 408.41 (used to be 408.21)
Yes, for single pole and inline tandems. The double pole tandems link the inner and outer pairs for 240V.
1 Like
Not at all! In Ohio these were code compliant and safe when installed. They are still code compliant (existing) and safe.
Home inspectors don’t give a crap about grandfathering. Grandfathering only applies to code compliance. They’re not there to inspect for or discuss code compliance.
The home inspector cares about the current standard of safety, regardless of compliance at the time of construction. Otherwise, home inspectors would never recommend adding GFCI protection in 1960s and older homes (obviously that is not the case).
Seems like a lot of people are asking about code here Not Chuck.
I’m trying to give another Ohio inspector the law of the land here. I am really tired of your stupid remarks. No one in Ohio gives a damn about your ignorant understanding of the law.
You gave him a code-enforcement answer, not a home inspector answer. Understanding code is worthwhile, trying to inspect as a code official is not. If you’re tired of being corrected here, leave. You claim to be a home inspector, but are not even a member. Perhaps because you’re not capable of passing the basic CPI exam.
Greg and the other inspectors would do well to follow Robert’s advice and ignore yours. Robert knows his subject matter. You, not so much…
Well Not Chuck I gave him a home inspector answer. If he takes your advice and calls it a defect and I get called in as the expert he is going to look pretty stupid when I say that there is nothing wrong!
I’m trying to save his reputation - your Texas comments will cost him dearly.
I don’t think you’d hold up well against a qualified expert witness. You certainly haven’t acquitted yourself very well on these boards. I don’t think they’d be too impressed with your participation award when you try to foist that off as if it were some sort of credential.
Good luck on the CPI exam.
Greg, I strongly agree with this statement. A vehicle analogy would be:
Telling your nephew (first time driver looking for information or guidance) “It is ok & you are just as safe not wearing your seatbelt because you are driving a 1983 vehicle & wearing a seat belt was not required in 1983”
But since you care about your hypothetical nephew, you might rather tell him:
“I recommend you always were your seatbelt. Even though wearing a seatbelt was not required when this vehicle was made, since then, the facts show that wearing your seatbelt increases your safety”
Or simply state
“Wearing your seatbelt increases your safety regardless of vehicle or year made.”
1 Like
Finally we agree! You sure do spend a lot of time trying to discredit me. What proof do you have that what I say is false?
I’m impressed with your three day course. “Level III Certified Infrared Thermographer® is a three-day course focused on best practices for infrared inspections and associated activities. This course contains information vital to the long term success of an infrared inspection program.”
Thermographer - sounds like something that you stick up your butt
Its a safe installation! What don’t you understand about that?
You shit for brains just insulted a whole bunch of us Thermographer’s.
Why don’t you just please move on to another board.
YOU ARE NOT WANTED HERE!
Someone please kick this guy off this forum.
You are great at insults but when a little jab is thrown your way you get butt hurt.
I’m starting the Torque Screwdriver Institute. Read the instruction manual and you are qualified.
Lighten up Roy. Do you wear your cap when inspecting?
I spend time correcting your false statements, which we have demonstrated numerous times. You discredit yourself. You don’t need me for that.
Your cluelessness is showing. As I said, you discredit yourself.
So it appears I have an internet stalker now.
Name ONE! You can’t, all I hear is your Not Chuck Texas opinion on Ohio law.
Opinions are like - well you know the saying. Everything is bigger in Texas - especially opinions.
Your substitution for the NEC definition of the term readily accessible instead of the definition that is actually included in RC 4764 in order to support your false claim.
There’s probably at least a dozen others, but you do your own homework.
You’re a dimwit.